Sunday, June 12, 2011

Response to the Humane Society's Position on Food Producing Animals

On June 10th, Holly Tarry (the Colorado Director of the Humane Society of the United States) sent the following letter to the member of Denver City Council: click here to view. [The link will take you away from this post. Just come back to us after you've finished reading the letter!]

The following is Sustainable Food Denver's response, sent to Ms. Tarry and cc'd to the members of the Denver City Council:

June 13th, 2011

Dear Ms. Tarry,

Thank
you for the work that you do with the Humane Society of the United States. The
Humane Society is a wonderful organization, and it contributes many valuable
things to our communities.

I
would like to respond to your letter addressing various aspects of Denver’s
proposed Food Producing Animals ordinance. I was happy to see you mention the
many benefits of backyard chickens. I also appreciate your recommendations
regarding best practices for urban chicken care. As you may know, Denver’s
Animal Care and Control department is planning on putting together information
regarding suggested care for Food Producing Animals, which would be distributed
to new chicken and dwarf goat owners with their license following the passage
of the new ordinance. I’m sure that they will take your recommendations into
consideration. Of course, the ordinance itself does not contain all of the
details you included regarding animal care (in the same way that Denver does
not legislate best practices for the care of dogs or cats). Nonetheless, the
proposed Food Producing Animals ordinance does contain space requirements for
the animals that go above and beyond anything that is legislated for other
pets, as well as above and beyond what some other cities with Food Producing
Animals ordinances have mandated.

I am
not sure I understand your request for permits and annual license fees for
individual animals. A one-time Food Producing Animals license accomplishes two
main goals: 1) It provides Animal Control with the opportunity to present
citizens with both the requirements of the ordinance and suggested best
practices for animal care; and 2) It allows Animal Control to know where Food
Producing Animals are being kept, in the rare instance of an animal escape or
other problems. There is no benefit in Animal Control knowing whether a specific
home has 6 hens or 8 hens, as long as the owner is complying with the
guidelines of the ordinance and not creating a nuisance. Additionally, there is
not a need to use annual licensing fees as a way to raise funds. Other cities
with progressive Food Producing Animals ordinances have not reported an
increase in enforcement costs as a result of the keeping of chickens or dwarf
goats. Dogs and cats require a license renewal as a way to document rabies vaccinations;
backyard chickens and goats in Colorado do not require a comparable vaccination
to protect the public health.

I take
considerable issue with your statement that including dwarf goats in the
proposed Food Producing Animals ordinance is leading Denver into “unexplored
territory.” Seattle and Portland allow the keeping of 3 dwarf dairy goats
without any sort of permit. Oakland and Chicago place dwarf goats in the same
category as other pets, and they’re allowed without any sort of permit or
special regulations. In addition, there are several other cities across the
country that have some type of urban goat ordinance.

Because
of their compact size, dwarf goats can (and do) thrive in urban backyards. In
mandating a minimum space requirement for the keeping of dwarf goats, Denver is
going above and beyond the ordinances in Seattle, Portland, Oakland, and
Chicago (which have no minimum space requirement). In addition, if an animal is
being abused, neglected, or mistreated, Animal Control has the ability to
intervene, even if the owner is meeting the minimum space requirement for care.

The
risk of parasitic infection in dwarf goats relates to the condition of the
goats’ pen, not its size. If a dwarf goat owner is concerned, they can use an
herbal de-wormer to further protect their goats.

Goat
diseases are typically region-specific. Soremouth (orf) is not highly prevalent
in Colorado. If the disease was to transfer to a human, the consequences are
mild (the symptoms resolve themselves in 6-8 weeks without requiring treatment).
I think we run the risk of losing perspective when we point selectively to the zoonotic
disease potential of certain animals. Let’s remember that our cats and dogs can
potentially transfer the following disease to humans: rabies, toxoplasmosis,
hookworms, roundworms, dog heartworms, cryptosporidium, campylobacteria,
helicobacter pylori, bartonellosis, lyme disease, ringworm, and sarcoptic
mange. And yet, they exist successfully in our cities.

I am
disappointed that you spoke so eloquently about the benefits of backyard
chickens, but neglected to acknowledge that identical benefits (reduction of
suffering in factory farms, increased appreciation for the animals, greater
compassion, etc) exist with the keeping of dwarf goats. Please remember that
dwarf goats are already legal in Denver, and there are many people who are
raising them successfully. The proposed ordinance does not seek to legalize
dwarf goats (or chicken and ducks); rather, it streamlines a bureaucratic and
unnecessarily expensive process, while adding some common-sense guidelines for
the keeping of the animals that did not previously exist.

I
appreciate the mission of the Humane Society, and I hope that we can work
together in the future to encourage the sensible, responsible keeping of
backyard Food Producing Animals. The continued increase in urban residents
obtaining their eggs and/or dairy from backyard animals will result in a
decrease in the consumption of factory-farmed animal products, and a concurrent
decrease in animal suffering.

3 comments:

Hi there. Congratulations on the passage of Denver's chicken keeping ordinance. I have concerns regarding the urban keeping of goats; that there will be an overpopulation of unwanted male goats. As you know, they are mammals like ourselves--the females must produce offspring in order to lactate. What is the plan for the newborn males?

Male goat kids (bucklings) have several options for re-homing. One possibility would be to re-home the buckling with someone who wants to use him for breeding, although that's rare. Most re-homing options will involve wethering. Once a buckling becomes a wether, he will grow up to be similar in size as a doe, and he won't have the awful smell or aggressive behaviors of a buck.

Wethers can be used as companion animals to a milking doe. It's very important to have 2 goats (owning just one will lead to an unhappy, unhealthy goat). So, families who only want to keep one milking doe can get a wether as a companion -- which is advantageous because wethers cost half/one-third the price of a doe.

Wethers can be used as brush-clearers on larger properties (which is what is happening in Wesley's case) and compost-makers. They are also great for hiking, and like to carry a little pack. Wethers can be used by kids for 4-H projects, and there's a lot of ag land and 4-H stuff happening in the communities surrounding Denver.

Last but not least, wethers make great pets. Goats are just as smart, social, and affectionate as dogs. Luckily, Denver's new FPA ordinance allows the keeping of wethers along with doe goats, so all of the above options are available within Denver as well as in the surrounding communities!

As a side note, I find it interesting how often people don't understand that a goat has to give birth to kids in order to produce milk, but those same people often think that you have to have a rooster in order to get eggs from chickens!